n a landmark judgment delivered on July 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court quashed 16 First Information Reports (FIRs) filed against 70 Indian nationals accused of sheltering foreign attendees of the Tablighi Jamaat congregation during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. With a simple pronouncement — “Chargesheets quashed” — Justice Neena Bansal Krishna closed a dark chapter that has long exposed the dangerous nexus between sensationalist media narratives, state machinery, and the systemic persecution of Muslims in India. The High Court’s decision confirms what many civil rights activists, lawyers, and journalists have said since March 2020: that the criminalization of the Tablighi Jamaat and its affiliates during the pandemic was not grounded in evidence, but rather in Islamophobic propaganda, media trial, and a state-sanctioned rush to scapegoat a religious minority during a national crisis. The Tablighi Jamaat congregation, held at the Nizamuddin Markaz in March 2020, became the focal point of intense national scrutiny after COVID-19 cases began rising across India. What followed was not an objective inquiry into public health violations, but a coordinated campaign of vilification. Even as the pandemic response faltered nationwide — with poor planning, inadequate healthcare infrastructure, and inconsistent lockdown policies — the blame was disproportionately pinned on a group of Muslims attending a religious event. The entire community was demonized, and Muslims were portrayed as “super-spreaders,” “bioterrorists,” and “corona jihadis” by a large section of India’s mainstream media. Television anchors turned into prosecutors, judges, and executioners, relentlessly broadcasting images of skullcaps and minarets, fueling hysteria and division. WhatsApp forwards, op-eds, and social media were flooded with hate speech, encouraged by dog-whistle messaging from political figures. An entire narrative was constructed to divert attention from institutional failures — and it worked. The media trial soon found backing in official action. By March 31, 2020, the Delhi Police had registered the first FIR against the Tablighi Jamaat’s organisers. Over the next few weeks, 29 more FIRs were filed in Delhi alone, many targeting Indian nationals who had offered shelter to stranded foreign attendees, often simply out of humanitarian concern. These citizens were charged under Section 188 (disobedience to order), Section 269 (negligent act likely to spread infection) of the Indian Penal Code, among others. Police argued that hosting foreigners — even when no proof of infection or intent to violate health protocols existed — was criminal. But as the Delhi High Court has now acknowledged, these accusations were baseless. There was no evidence that the petitioners were COVID-positive or that their actions facilitated the virus’s spread. Sheltering people during a pandemic was not a crime — yet they were treated like criminals, targeted for who they were and whom they helped. For the 70 Indian nationals whose charges were finally quashed, justice came after five years of social stigma, legal harassment, and psychological trauma. Their names, faces, and communities were dragged through mud — not just in courtrooms, but on prime-time television. Their guilt was assumed before they were even heard. And even as legal cases fell apart, as foreign nationals were acquitted or repatriated, and as evidence collapsed under scrutiny — no apology was issued, and no accountability was fixed for the misinformation, the hate, and the fear-mongering. This is the anatomy of a media-state nexus: when government narratives align with populist hate, and television channels choose ratings over responsibility, justice becomes irrelevant and minorities become targets. This episode is not an isolated one. Whether it’s love jihad laws, bulldozer justice, or fabricated terror cases, there is a consistent pattern: Muslims are presumed guilty, and media trials prepare the ground for legal persecution. Even when courts later acquit or dismiss the charges, the damage is done — reputations ruined, lives derailed. Crucially, this manufactured outrage is selective. When COVID restrictions were flouted during massive religious gatherings like the Kumbh Mela or political rallies in election-bound states, the same media and state showed leniency, if not open approval. There was no talk of “super-spreaders,” no communal labeling, no criminal prosecutions on this scale. The Delhi High Court’s decision to quash these FIRs should be a moment of relief — but also reflection. Relief for those wrongly accused, yes, but also a reminder that institutional bias, media hysteria, and politicized policing can converge to crush innocent lives. It is a warning that justice delayed is not only justice denied — it is also justice obscured, buried beneath noise and propaganda. Now that the legal system has acknowledged the baselessness of these charges, the question must be asked: Will the media that maligned these individuals apologize? Will the authorities who prosecuted them face consequences? Will those who stirred hate for political gain be held accountable? If the answer is no — as it has been so many times before — then we must recognize this for what it truly is: not a lapse in the system, but a system working exactly as designed, to marginalize and persecute. The Delhi High Court may have set the record straight in law. But the court of public perception, manipulated for years by state-backed propaganda, may take much longer to recover — if it ever does.